RAMESH PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr.V.R.Manoharan for the Petitioner and Mr.V.T.Tulpule, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra.

(2.) This is an application for bail in a case under section 302, 307, 341 r/w 34 IPC, and/or 120-B r/w section 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. In all, 9 persons are being prosecuted. It is common ground between the counsel for the parties, that the petitioner was not one of those, who has been attributed any role in respect of the assault on the deceased. Counsel for the parties are also in agreement that the participation of the petitioner in the crime is with the aid of section 120-IPC. But, the note of discord between them is that whereas Mr.V.R.Manohar urges that in the evidence collected during the investigation, there is no material to prima facie establish the charge of conspiracy. Mr.V.T.Tulpule, Public Prosecutor contends that there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the said charge.

(3.) At the stage of bail, it is neither possible nor proper for the Court to give a finding whether there is sufficient evidence or not against the petitioner in respect of the charge of conspiracy because, any finding is bound to influence the trial Court when it finally disposes off the trial.